Notes of Decisions
Gilbert v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 108× “The two issues in this appeal are whether services performed during this period by four workers constituted employment in Wisconsin within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 108.02 (15)(b) and (d) (2005-06) 1 rendering Gilbert a Wisconsin employer *731 for unemployment tax purposes,…”
Drivers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, Milk Processors, Cannery, Dairy Employees & Helpers Local No. 695 v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 452 N.W.2d 368 (Wis. 1990).
· cites it 20× “We conclude that the refunds were not remuneration for services as made a prerequisite under sec. 108.02(26), Stats., and, therefore, are not "wages" for this purpose.”
Stafford Trucking, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 306 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 14× “In order for the owner-operators to be eligible for exemption under the first prong of the subpart (b) test, it would have to be shown that the owner-operators are free from the employing unit’s “control or direction over the performance of [their] services both under [their]…”
Larson v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 516 N.W.2d 456 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 18× “Larson's employees under *384 § 108.02(12), Stats., which defines "employe" for unemployment tax purposes.”
Margoles v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 585 N.W.2d 596 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 23× “Whether a physician is an employee under § 108.02(12), Stats., is a mixed question of fact and law, which requires the application of a statutory standard to findings of fact.”
Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2010 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 25× “It contends that Dunham failed to establish that the drivers were free from Dunham's direction and control in performing services for Dun-ham, or that the drivers were engaged in independently established businesses, as required under Wis. Stat. § 108.02 (12)(c) (2007-08) 1 to…”
Brauneis v. State, Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2000 WI 69 (Wis. 2000).
· cites it 6× “9 However, employees are defined as those performing services ( Wis. Stat. § 108.02 (12)); employment means service by an individual for pay ( Wis.”
Lifedata Med. Servs. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 531 N.W.2d 451 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 14× “On review, the circuit court reversed LIRC's decision and concluded that Lifedata's paramedical examiners were not "employes" of Lifedata as defined in § 108.02(12), Stats. Section 108.02(12), STATS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(11) — 2 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12) — 11 cases
Margoles v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 585 N.W.2d 596 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
“Whether a physician is an employee under § 108.02(12), Stats., is a mixed question of fact and law, which requires the application of a statutory standard to findings of fact.”
Lifedata Med. Servs. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 531 N.W.2d 451 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
“On review, the circuit court reversed LIRC's decision and concluded that Lifedata's paramedical examiners were not "employes" of Lifedata as defined in § 108.02(12), Stats. Section 108.02(12), STATS.”
Gilbert v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“The two issues in this appeal are whether services performed during this period by four workers constituted employment in Wisconsin within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 108.02 (15)(b) and (d) (2005-06) 1 rendering Gilbert a Wisconsin employer *731 for unemployment tax purposes,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(a) — 9 cases
Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2010 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
“It contends that Dunham failed to establish that the drivers were free from Dunham's direction and control in performing services for Dun-ham, or that the drivers were engaged in independently established businesses, as required under Wis. Stat. § 108.02 (12)(c) (2007-08) 1 to…”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(b) — 11 cases
Gilbert v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“The two issues in this appeal are whether services performed during this period by four workers constituted employment in Wisconsin within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 108.02 (15)(b) and (d) (2005-06) 1 rendering Gilbert a Wisconsin employer *731 for unemployment tax purposes,…”
Margoles v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 585 N.W.2d 596 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
“Whether a physician is an employee under § 108.02(12), Stats., is a mixed question of fact and law, which requires the application of a statutory standard to findings of fact.”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(bm) — 6 cases
Gilbert v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“The two issues in this appeal are whether services performed during this period by four workers constituted employment in Wisconsin within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 108.02 (15)(b) and (d) (2005-06) 1 rendering Gilbert a Wisconsin employer *731 for unemployment tax purposes,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(c) — 1 case
Wisconsin Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2010 WI App 123 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010).
“It contends that Dunham failed to establish that the drivers were free from Dunham's direction and control in performing services for Dun-ham, or that the drivers were engaged in independently established businesses, as required under Wis. Stat. § 108.02 (12)(c) (2007-08) 1 to…”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(e) — 1 case
Lifedata Med. Servs. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 531 N.W.2d 451 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
“On review, the circuit court reversed LIRC's decision and concluded that Lifedata's paramedical examiners were not "employes" of Lifedata as defined in § 108.02(12), Stats. Section 108.02(12), STATS.”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(13) — 3 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(13)(a) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(13)(e) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(13)(f) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(14) — 2 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(14m) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15) — 5 cases
Gilbert v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“The two issues in this appeal are whether services performed during this period by four workers constituted employment in Wisconsin within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 108.02 (15)(b) and (d) (2005-06) 1 rendering Gilbert a Wisconsin employer *731 for unemployment tax purposes,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(a) — 6 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(b) — 2 cases
Gilbert v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2008 WI App 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008).
“The two issues in this appeal are whether services performed during this period by four workers constituted employment in Wisconsin within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 108.02 (15)(b) and (d) (2005-06) 1 rendering Gilbert a Wisconsin employer *731 for unemployment tax purposes,…”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(d) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(f) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(h) — 2 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(k) — 3 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(15)(km) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(17) — 2 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(18) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(21) — 2 cases
Stafford Trucking, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 306 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
“In order for the owner-operators to be eligible for exemption under the first prong of the subpart (b) test, it would have to be shown that the owner-operators are free from the employing unit’s “control or direction over the performance of [their] services both under [their]…”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(22) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(22m) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(24m) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(25) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(26) — 6 cases
Drivers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, Milk Processors, Cannery, Dairy Employees & Helpers Local No. 695 v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 452 N.W.2d 368 (Wis. 1990).
“We conclude that the refunds were not remuneration for services as made a prerequisite under sec. 108.02(26), Stats., and, therefore, are not "wages" for this purpose.”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(26)(a) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(29) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(3) — 10 cases
Stafford Trucking, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 306 N.W.2d 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
“In order for the owner-operators to be eligible for exemption under the first prong of the subpart (b) test, it would have to be shown that the owner-operators are free from the employing unit’s “control or direction over the performance of [their] services both under [their]…”
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(3)(a) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(3)(b) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(4) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(4)(a) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(5) — 2 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(5)(f) — 2 cases
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(6) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(8) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(b) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 108.02(ll)(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.